OT - Innocent men held as Guantanamo Bay prisoners

bomb

More people were killed in one raid on Dresden in February 1945 than by all the nuclear weapons, tests, accidents, and waste storage since then.

I never realised I had much credibility as it was - pretty much like most people here.

But yes, I got things mixed up, and should have checked before writing from memory. It was the Russian declaration of war on the 8th that occurred between the two bombings, and is often considered the reason for the second bomb being dropped, and as the real reason for the Japanese surrender (which was effectively on the 15th August, when the Japanese Emperor accepted the Potsdam Declaration, even though it was not signed until later).

Anyway, there was plenty of political will in Japan for surrender before the bombs were dropped - it was the Emporer who needed persuading. It seems there is little doubt that the surrender would have come anyway (especially after Russia declared war on Japan, but even without that), though it would cost a great deal on all sides.

I heard it cited on the radio, but I recounted the stats incorrectly.

75% of those decisions _appealed_ were overturned.

...Jim Thompson

--
|  James E.Thompson, P.E.                           |    mens     |
|  Analog Innovations, Inc.                         |     et      |
|  Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC\'s and Discrete Systems  |    manus    |
|  Phoenix, Arizona            Voice:(480)460-2350  |             |
|  E-mail Address at Website     Fax:(480)460-2142  |  Brass Rat  |
|       http://www.analog-innovations.com           |    1962     |
             
I love to cook with wine.      Sometimes I even put it in the food.

Not sure I agree with that, was just trying to point out that it was the military, not the emperor, blocking progress towards surrender.

Yes. Until it was clear that Hiroshima was no "fluke" and that every city in Japan would be vaporized, the emperror had no argument. USSR declaring war was a side show.

--
  Keith

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@example.net:

Lots of "innocent" people get killed or maimed in war. It's good incentive to not START wars. Once one starts,better theirs die than ours.

Would it matter less to you if they were incinerated by a conventional bomb or ordinary incendary?

I shudder when I think about how the dreamers,socialists and Utopians also have that same right to vote.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Well, killing is killing, no matter what rhetoric you dress it up in.

The only honest reason for killing someone is self-defense. And going on military invasions because "someone might attack us" is _NOT_ self- defense. ("defence", in case the right-pondians need a translation.)

Thanks, Rich

On Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:01:46 -0800, Richard Henry wrote: ...

"Waste storage?" Do you mean "nuclear waste storage?" Can you name one person who has been killed by nuclear waste storage?

One?

Thanks, Rich

At every opportunity, mate.

Kevin Aylward snipped-for-privacy@anasoft.co.uk

SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture, Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.

I was under the impression that the USA didn't consider the USSR's position a sideshow.

Had the USSR been involved in a defeat of Japan they would have expected rights as an occupying force. Therefore there was an additional incentive for the US to get the war over fast.

Graham

That would be hard to do explicitly since the hazards associated with waste srorage are mainly leaks into the environment where it's tricky to audit the effect.

There have been nuclear waste associated explosions at BNFL though. I'm sure some of these have been linked to subsequent deaths on account of occupational health issues.

Graham

Maybe we aren't supposed to go halfway around the world looking for trouble. And maybe while we're there, we shouldn't be offering the kind of loose bounties that encourage local entrepeneurs to turn in random strangers (or old enemies) to make a buck.

We need to take a serious look at why we're holding these particular folks; chances are in a lot of cases we've been ripped off. The primary purpose of court review is to establish if the folks we've got are those you so poetically characterize above, or simply those who were in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And yes, mistakes will be made in both directions. But when you hear about someone we released being recaptured in possesion of an AK-47, ask yourself this - what would your response be to a foreign power who'd locked you up for a year or two? Any chance you might have a bone to pick with those responsable?

I've been reading a little more on the topic since my last post.

The politicians were first to face reality and try for surrender. They then had to persuade the emperor, who then had to persuade the military. The politicians were actually wanting to surrender long before the first bomb was dropped, albeit not unconditional surrender.

Military defeat for Japan, and therefore surrender even by the military leaders, was just a matter of time even if the USSR had not entered the war. I am fully aware that there would have been substantial costs on all sides had the war continued, but at best the bombs hastened the surrender, rather than causing it. However, a lot of historians feel it was the USSR's declaration of war and invasion that made the defeat obvious even to the stubborn military leaders.

As for the influence of the USSR on the USA decision about dropping the bombs, do you think the dates are just coincidence? The USA knew exactly when the USSR were going to declare war and invade Japan, and timed the bombs as a sign to the USSR. The USA could simply have left the Russians to invade Japan and secure the Japanese defeat, with little additional cost of American lives (although there would be risks to POW's), but that would mean sharing the defeated Japan with the USSR - once USSR had moved in, it would be hard to get them out again.

The interesting thing (from a purely objective, inhuman viewpoint) about the firebombing of Dresden is its similarity to a nuclear bomb. The technique used was to drop overwhelming quantities of fire bombs in a small area, producing such an intense fire that it produced a massive mushroom cloud. People were killed by suffocation as the fire sucked in all the oxygen, and they were killed by searing winds.

This may come as a novel concept to your pea sized brain, but there is such a thing as enacting more than one law. Most of the detainees were taken into custody for purposes other than prosecution, such as interrogation and segregation. If there is a problem with possible abuse then enactments can mandate a set of regulations establishing a reasonable standard of probable cause for the detention and this can be subject to independent review. But if you think we are supposed to go half way around the world risking life and limb in some hell hole to capture these murderous pigs and then be required to establish guilt to a stringent US standard of evidence as ordinarily applied in domestic criminal law, then you are the one who is dreaming. The problem with people like is your arrogance prevents you from realizing just how dumb and ignorant you are.

"Most of the deta "But if you think we are supposed to go half way around the world risking life and limb in some hell hole to capture these murderous pigs and then be required to establish guilt to a stringent US standard of evidence as ordinarily applied in domestic..."

Hi Fred,

You say that most of the detainees were simply taken for interrogation and segregation. But in the same paragraph you refer to them as "murderous pigs". Gosh, that reminds me of an infamous quote (perhaps incorrectly) attributed to the Abbot of Citeaux. After the fall of Bezier (a city in Southern France) the papists rounded up the citizenry; among the Catholics were an unkown number of so-called "Cathars" (whom the Albigensian crusaders had sworn to crush). Hot for blood, the crusaders inquired how might they distinguish the Catholics from the Cathars? The Abbot, Arnaud-Amaury, is said to have ordered: "Tuez-les tous; Dieu reconnaitra les siens." Or roughly: Kill them all, God will recognize his own.

Btw, the part historians don't quibble over is the fact that nearly the entire population was massacred by the Papists. A report of the action sent to Pope Innocent III (Innocent...now that's rich!) declared, "=2E..neither age, nor sex, nor status had been spared."

Yes, Fred, I agree that it is much to ask someone to travel to a distant land, to endure hardships and then to treat the inhabitants they find, not as Untermenschen, or as murderous pigs, but as brothers and sisters. To be decent and live with honor, to be a gentleman and to practice universal altruism is quite a lot to ask of a man. Men are not fallen angels, we are risen pond-scum. What civilization we have wasn't found, it was made at a terrible cost.

"Being human is an accomplishment like playing an instrument. It takes practice. The keys must be mastered. The old scores must be committed to memory. It is a skill we can forget. A little noise can make us forget the notes. The best of us is historical; the best of us is fragile. Being human is a second nature which history taught us, and which terror and deprivation can batter us into forgetting." Michael Ignatieff, "The Needs of Strangers"

What's more, evil is rarely done under the banner of evil. On the belt buckle worn by most every German soldier in WW2 was cast the message: "Gott Mit Uns". Indeed, no Army marches and few terrorists attack without the implicit blessing of their god. But evil can be done in any name and under any pretext. Bear in mind Madam Roland's cry before the guillotine: O Libert=E9, que de crimes on commet en ton nom!

Incidently, the Christian connection to war is particularly interesting to me (a devout atheist). It's well-known how Christ would have his followers act.

Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:39-44): "But I say to you, do not resist him who is evil; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn to him the other also...You have heard that it was said, You shall love your neighbor, and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you."

Sermon on the Plain (Luke 6:27-35): But I say to you who hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. Whoever hits you on the cheek, offer him the other also...But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great..."

Indeed, Father Tertullian (155-230) asked of his followers, "If we are enjoined to love our enemies, whom are we to hate?" Of course the early Christians were pacifists. One complaints against the early Christians by the Roman authorities was that Christians refused to join the military.

Augustine changed all that. By his "Just War" theory, he allowed Chrisianity to make peace with war.

"Augustine put Christianity on a new ethical footing by providing a rationale for Christian participation in war. In so doing he turned Christ's teaching on its head." Robert L. Holmes, "On War and Morality," p.117, Princeton Univ. Press,

1989

"This enabled Christians to behave in ways that must have been scarcely imaginable to Christ and his early followers and at the same time to believe they were being true to his teachings to the point where today, if one were to reflect upon the conduct of civilized persons without regard to religious affliations, he would be hard-pressed to distinguish Christians from non-Christians." Ibid, p145

Christ's message is radical and incredibly ballsy; if someone stikes you, you don't strike them back, instead you offer them your love! And so it's little wonder that many prefer to "talk the talk," and not "walk the walk" when it come to Christ's radical directives. In response to 9/11 Christ would have had us respond no differently than to any other evil visited upon us. He'd have his followers respond with love and prayer; certainly not with "shock and awe"!

Btw, if a Christian finds instances in the New Testament where Christ become violent (driving the money changer's from the temple, for example), that Christian isn't permitted to emulate the actions of his, supposed, Savior. Inavariably, he must follow the directives given to him by his Savior. Remember, by Christian accounts Christ's daddy is going to end the world with fire. Are we allowed to do as he does rather than as he says?

Christians have been instructed how to behave. If a man chooses to live according to those directives then he has every right to refer to himself as a follower of Christ. But those that make war their profession might, for all practical purpose, worship their Christian Devil as their Christian Savior. Simply put, there are no Christians in uniform; which implies there are no Christians fighting in Iraq. Call them Augustinian Pretenders, call them what you like, just don't call them Christians. Not even the act of planting a white cross on their grave will make them in death what they were not in life.

Pax Vobiscum, Mike

Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@example.net:

Sure it is;it's called "preemptive strike". Israel used it successfully,IIRC in 1973.(Six-day War?) Police also use it;if you point a gun at them,even if you haven't actually fired a shot at them,they WILL shoot you first.Even ODCs have that right,at least in most of the USofA. Of course,it has to be a CREDIBLE threat.(which Iraq was)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

David Brown wrote in news:437da174$ snipped-for-privacy@news.wineasy.se:

According to the PBS show I watched last night,Stalin was advised about a "new terrible weapon" we were going to use,and Stalin ignored it.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

David Brown wrote in news:437da2ab$ snipped-for-privacy@news.wineasy.se:

The "inhuman" part is making war against civilians(non-combatants),but in both cases,the civs were among weapons and support factories.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net